ABIOMED INC: Expects Two Securities Suits to Be Consolidated--------------------------------------------------------------Abiomed, Inc. said in its February 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing withthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter endedDecember 31, 2012, that it expects that the two securities classaction lawsuits against it will be consolidated.

On November 16 and 19, 2012, two purported class action complaintswere filed against the Company and certain of its officers in theU.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts by allegedpurchasers of the Company's common stock, on behalf of themselvesand persons or entities that purchased or acquired the Company'ssecurities between August 5, 2011, and October 31, 2012. Thecomplaints allege that the defendants violated the federalsecurities laws in connection with disclosures related to the U.S.Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") and the marketing andlabeling of the Company's Impella 2.5 product and seek damages inan unspecified amount. The Company says it expects that the Courtwill consolidate these complaints.

Based in Danvers, Massachusetts, Abiomed, Inc. --http://www.abiomed.com-- is a provider of medical devices that provide circulatory support. Its products are designed to enablethe heart to rest by improving blood flow and/or performing thepumping of the heart.

The FSIS says the list of store locations may not include allretail locations that have received the recalled product or mayinclude retail locations that did not actually receive therecalled product. Therefore, the FSIS says, it is important thatconsumers use the product-specific identification informationavailable at http://is.gd/HA4a8H,in addition to the list of retail stores, to check meat or poultry products in the consumers'possession to see if they have been recalled.

AECOM TECHNOLOGY: Australian Unit Defends Class Action Suit-----------------------------------------------------------AECOM Technology Corporation's main Australian subsidiary isdefending itself against a class action lawsuit for its role inconnection with a traffic forecast, according to the Company'sFebruary 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarter endedDecember 31, 2012.

In 2005 and 2006, the Company's main Australian subsidiary, AECOMAustralia Pty Ltd (AECOM Australia), performed a traffic forecastassignment for a client consortium as part of their project todesign, build, finance and operate a tolled motorway tunnel inAustralia. To fund the motorway's design and construction, theclient formed a special purpose vehicle (SPV) that raisedapproximately $700 million Australian dollars through an initialpublic offering (IPO) of equity units in 2006 and approximately anadditional $1.4 billion Australian dollars in long term bankloans. The SPV (and certain affiliated SPVs) went into insolvencyadministrations in February 2011.

A class action lawsuit, which has been amended to includeapproximately 770 of the IPO investors, was filed against AECOMAustralia in the Federal Court of Australia on May 31, 2012.Separately, KordaMentha, the receivers for the SPVs, filed alawsuit in the Federal Court of Australia on May 14, 2012,claiming damages that purportedly resulted from AECOM Australia'srole in connection with the traffic forecast. WestLB, one of thelending banks to the SPVs, filed a lawsuit in the Federal Court ofAustralia on May 18, 2012. Centerbridge Credit Partners (and anumber of related entities) and Midtown Acquisitions (and a numberof related entities), both claiming to be assignees of certainother lending banks, previously filed their own proceedings in theFederal Court of Australia and then subsequently withdrew thelawsuits. None of the lawsuits specify the amount of damagessought and the damages sought by WestLB are duplicative of damagesalready included in the receivers' claim.

In the first quarter of 2011, three putative class actions werefiled against Nicor Energy Services Company and Northern IllinoisGas Company, doing business as Nicor Gas Company, and in one caseagainst Nicor Inc. -- an acquisition completed in December 2011and former holding company of Nicor Gas. In September 2011, thethree cases were consolidated into a single class action pendingin state court in Cook County, Illinois. The plaintiffs purportto represent a class of customers of Nicor Gas who purchasedappliance warranty and service plans from Nicor Services and/or aclass of customers of Nicor Gas, who purchased the Gas LineComfort Guard product from Nicor Services. In the consolidatedaction, the plaintiffs variously allege that the marketing, saleand billing of the Nicor Services appliance warranty and serviceplans and Gas Line Comfort Guard violate the Illinois ConsumerFraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, constitute common lawfraud and result in unjust enrichment of Nicor Services and NicorGas. The plaintiffs seek, on behalf of the classes they purportto represent, actual and punitive damages, interest, costs,attorney fees and injunctive relief. While the Company is unableto predict the outcome of these matters or to reasonably estimatethe Company's potential exposure related thereto, if any, and hasnot recorded a liability associated with this contingency, thefinal disposition of this matter is not expected to have amaterial adverse impact on the Company's liquidity or financialcondition.

CENTEX: Lake Elsinore Residents Mull Suit Over Mello-Roos Taxes---------------------------------------------------------------Toni McAllister, writing for Lake Elsinore-Wildomar Patch, reportsthat officials with a national home building company say they arelooking into allegations by some Lake Elsinore residents who claimthey were bamboozled by the giant builder.

Nearly 100 residents turned out Jan. 31 during a public meeting atthe Lake Elsinore Senior Center with paperwork in hand showingthat Centex, which is now part of Michigan-based PulteGroup Inc.,may have misrepresented the terms of their Mello-Roos.

The residents are part of Lake Elsinore's Community FacilitiesDistrict 88-3, a swath of the city that has more than 2,000 homessurrounding McVicker Canyon Park. Residents there say the Mello-Roos tax they are paying is lasting longer than what was disclosedto them when they bought their homes. Many thought the tax wouldend in 2012, others claim they were told dates such as the year2015 or 2017.

City Attorney Barbara Leibold maintains all documents filed withcity clearly show the tax continues until the year 2020.

"The city claims the bonds were always for 30 years, and all thebuilders told everyone the taxes would only be for 20 years," saidresident Dianne Chavarria.

Builders form Community Facilities Districts to seek publicfinancing through the sale of bonds. The financing pays for publicimprovements and services in the community, such a schools, parks,etc. Those living in a CFD pay off the bonds through specialtaxes commonly known as Mello-Roos.

Ms. Chavarria has spearheaded an effort to reach out to herneighbors who may have been sold a bill of goods and is gatheringpaperwork to prepare for what is expected to be a class actionlawsuit.

"You were provided bad information," Ms. Leibold told residents,some of whom bought their homes 20 years ago when sales in thedevelopment first began. "Those developer documents areincorrect. They [the builders] had a legal obligation to discloseaccurately the Mello-Roos."

On Feb. 1, Patch contacted PulteGroup and as of Feb. 7 companyspokeswoman Jacque Petroulakis maintains, "We are still lookinginto the matter."

Centex is one of several builders named in CFD 88-3, however itappears they were the master builder and the first to sell homesthere.

In 2005, a Los Angeles group of homeowners won a settlement in aclass action lawsuit that claimed developers misrepresented theresidents' tax liability under Mello-Roos and disclosure laws. Atotal of 164 homes in the Sonata and Whispering Oaks developmentsin the City of Saugus were involved, with the buyers claimingtheir Mello-Roos tax had been erroneously disclosed by HaskellCanyon Ranch LLC/Curtis Development Corp./Curtis Ventures Inc. Aspart of a settlement agreement, the defendant was ordered tocompensate the homeowners.

Curtis Development Corp. has been linked to Curtis-Elsinore RanchCompany, which was attached to one parcel in Lake Elsinore's CFD88-3. Ms. Chavarria said she is not aware of any homeowners whopurchased from Curtis-Elsinore and attempts to reach CurtisDevelopment Corp. have been unsuccessful.

Meanwhile Ms. Chavarria has asked that any homeowners who feelthey may have been cheated reach out to her at (951) 245-0049.

CHICAGO, IL: Police Officer Files Overtime Class Action-------------------------------------------------------WLS/FOX reports that a class-action suit started by a policeofficer is attempting to get his employer to make compensation forcalls answered on a company phone after working hours.

Sgt. Jeffrey Allen is suing the city for frequently answering his"required-to-use" department BlackBerry when he's off duty.

Sgt. Allen claims that since he has been using the phone duringhis own time, he is entitled to overtime pay.

"If they have a half-hour phone call outside of work hours to asuperior about a search warrant they're going to work on the nextday, that is something that needs to be paid for," said Sgt.Allen's attorney, Paul Geiger.

The suit was filed three years ago, but now has a green light tomove forward as a class action. It is unclear how many of the 200crime officers would join the suit.

Mr. Geiger said the lawsuit has merit because it seeks to enforcealready longstanding statutes.

The major problem is that technology has outpaced the law.

"Labor law in the U.S. needs a real housecleaning," said laborexpert and University of Illinois-Chicago professor Robert Bruno."It would seem to me that every one of those phone calls is awork-related call, and it will add up."

The city has said there are work policies and procedures thatallow officers to request overtime.

These settlements are estimated to be in excess of $1 billion,though the total value of which will depend primarily on theactual costs of remediation, the funding for which is uncapped.The settlements will benefit more than 10,000 property ownerswhose homes and properties have been damaged by defective Chinesedrywall. These settlements were achieved after several years ofsettlement discussions and court-ordered conferences and are basedon the precedents set by the 2010 Hernandez case and Knauf PilotProgram initiated in the fall of 2010, which were previouslyapproved by Judge Fallon.

A fairness hearing on this settlement took place November 13,2012. The court's order certified the Interior/Exterior BuildingSupply, LP, settlement; the Banner settlement; the L&W SupplyCorporation settlement; the Knauf settlement; and the Globalparticipating builders, suppliers and installers settlement.

The balance of the case will continue as the Federal Fifth CircuitCourt of Appeals determines whether another Chinese manufacturerand supplier of defective drywall, Taishan entities (includingTaishan Gypsum Co. Ltd. and Taian Taishan Plasterboard Co. Ltd.),which is owned and operated by the People's Republic of China, mayalso be held liable for damage to an additional 4,000 - 5,000properties in the future.

Lead counsel Arnold Levin said he is "thrilled that the court hasissued an order and is hopeful that homeowners will now be able toget their homes remediated and put their lives back together."

It is estimated that between 12,000 - 20,000 homes and businesseshave been built using the defective drywall between 2005 and 2008,primarily in Florida, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas andVirginia. The defective drywall has been associated withunpleasant and potentially harmful odors and fumes that corrodemetals, including air conditioning units, fixtures and otherappliances.

According to The Associated Press, Knauf agreed to create anuncapped fund to pay for repairing roughly 5,200 properties,mostly in Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. A separatefund capped at $30 million will pay for other types of losses,including those by people who blame drywall for health problems.

Attorneys' fees and costs paid by Knauf are capped at $160 millionand will not be deducted from homeowners' shares of the settlementmoney.

A total of about 300 plaintiffs have opted out of the fivesettlements, according to Mr. Levin.

Judge Fallon, who presides over more than 10,000 claims involvingChinese drywall, refused in September to dismiss property owners'claims against a different Chinese drywall maker, Taishan GypsumCo. Ltd.

Taishan, which argues that U.S. courts don't have jurisdictionover claims against it, appealed Judge Fallon's ruling.

COMPUTER SCIENCES: Dismissed as Defendant From "Childress" Suit---------------------------------------------------------------Computer Sciences Corporation disclosed in its February 6, 2013,Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissionfor the quarter ended December 28, 2012, that it was dismissed asa defendant from the class action lawsuit commenced by Andrea M.Childress.

On October 19, 2012, a putative class action complaint was filedin the United States District Court of the Southern District ofIndiana, entitled Andrea M. Childress v. Experian InformationServices, Inc. and CSC Credit Services, Inc. The complaintalleges Fair Credit Reporting Act claims regarding reportsprepared about consumers who filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcyprotection and subsequently withdrew their bankruptcy filingbefore court approval of a bankruptcy plan. Plaintiff, on behalfof the class, seeks statutory and punitive damages, injunctiverelief and attorneys' fees. On February 4, 2013, CSC wasdismissed without prejudice from this lawsuit by plaintiff'snotice filed with the court.

COMPUTER SCIENCES: Securities Suit Trial Set for May 21-------------------------------------------------------Trial in the consolidated securities class action lawsuit againstComputer Sciences Corporation is scheduled for May 21, 2013,according to the Company's February 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing withthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter endedDecember 28, 2012.

Between June 3, 2011, and July 21, 2011, four putative classaction complaints were filed in the United States District Courtfor the Eastern District of Virginia, entitled City of RosevilleEmployee's Retirement System v. Computer Sciences Corporation, etal. (No. 1:11-cv-00610-TSE-IDD), Murphy v. Computer SciencesCorporation, et al. (No. 1:11-cv-00636-TSE-IDD), Kramer v.Computer Sciences Corporation, et al. (No. 1:11-cv-00751-TSE-IDD)and Goldman v. Computer Sciences Corporation, et al. (No. 1:11-cv-777-TSE-IDD). On August 29, 2011, the four actions wereconsolidated as In re Computer Sciences Corporation SecuritiesLitigation (No. 1:11-cv-610-TSE-IDD) and Ontario Teachers' PensionPlan Board was appointed lead plaintiff. A consolidated classaction complaint was filed by plaintiff on September 26, 2011, andnames as defendants CSC, Michael W. Laphen, Michael J. Mancuso andDonald G. DeBuck. A corrected complaint was filed on October 19,2011. The complaint alleges violations of the federal securitieslaws in connection with alleged misrepresentations and omissionsregarding the business and operations of the Company.Specifically, the allegations arise from the Company's disclosureof the Company's investigation into certain accountingirregularities in the Nordic region and its disclosure regardingthe status of the Company's agreement with the U.K. NationalHealth Service (NHS). Among other things, the plaintiff seeksunspecified monetary damages. The plaintiff filed a motion forclass certification with the court on September 22, 2011, and thedefendants filed a motion to dismiss on October 18, 2011. Ahearing was held on November 4, 2011. On August 29, 2012, thecourt issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part anddenying in part the motion to dismiss. The court granted themotion to dismiss with respect to the plaintiff's claims inconnection with alleged misrepresentations and omissionsconcerning the Company's operations in the Nordic Region. Thecourt granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismisswith respect to the plaintiff's claims in connection with allegedmisrepresentations and omissions concerning the Company's internalcontrols and the Company's contract with the NHS. The court alsogranted the plaintiff leave to amend its complaint by September12, 2012, and maintained the stay of discovery until thesufficiency of the amended complaint had been decided. The courtfurther denied plaintiff's motion for class certification withoutprejudice. On September 12, 2012, the plaintiff filed a noticeadvising the Court that it had determined not to amend itscomplaint and renewed its motion for class certification. OnSeptember 21, 2012, the court issued an Order setting the hearingon the motion for class certification for October 12, 2012,directing the parties to complete discovery by January 11, 2013,and scheduling the final pretrial conference for January 17, 2013.

On October 9, 2012, the defendants filed their answer to theplaintiff's complaint. On October 12, 2012, the hearing on themotion for class certification was rescheduled to November 1,2012. On October 31, 2012, the parties filed a joint motion withthe court requesting that the hearing on the motion for classcertification be rescheduled to a later date. On November 1,2012, the court issued an order setting the hearing for classcertification for November 15, 2012. On November 30, 2012, thecourt granted plaintiff's motion for class certification. OnDecember 14, 2012, defendants filed with the Fourth Circuit apetition for permission to appeal the class certification orderpursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). Plaintiff'sresponse to the petition was filed on January 30, 2013. OnDecember 14, 2012, the court issued an order extending the expertdiscovery deadline to February 25, 2013. On December 20, 2012,the court issued an order extending the fact discovery deadline toFebruary 11, 2013, and the expert discovery deadline toMarch 25, 2013. Motions for summary judgment are due onMarch 18, 2013. Trial is scheduled for May 21, 2013.

The defendants deny the allegations and intend to defend theirposition vigorously. The Company is unable to estimate anypossible loss or range of loss associated with this matter at thistime.

CYBEX INT'L: Plaintiff's Bid to Enjoin Shareholder Vote Denied--------------------------------------------------------------Cybex International, Inc. disclosed in its February 6, 2013, Form8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission thatthe request of a stockholder plaintiff to enjoin the vote of theCompany's shareholders of a merger transaction at a specialmeeting was denied.

Cybex International, Inc. ("Cybex" or the "Company") provides anupdate with respect to In Re: Cybex International, Inc.Stockholders Litigation, the class action lawsuit pending in theSupreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. Thisaction alleges, among other things, that the defendants, whichinclude Cybex and its directors, breached their fiduciaryobligations to the Company's shareholders by entering into theAgreement and Plan of Merger ("Merger Agreement") pursuant towhich all of the Company's outstanding common stock held by itspublic shareholders would be converted into $2.55 per share cashin a "going private" merger transaction. At a hearing held by theCourt on February 5, 2013, the Court denied the Plaintiff's motionto enjoin the vote of the Company's shareholders at the SpecialMeeting of Shareholders called to approve the Merger Agreement("Special Meeting"). Accordingly, the Special Meeting proceededas scheduled on February 6, 2013, at the Company's chief executiveoffices at 10 Trotter Drive, in Medway, Massachusetts.

Daiichi Sankyo has systemically paid female sales employees lessthan similarly situated male sales employees, the Plaintiffsallege. They contend that the Company has also denied femalesales employees access to leadership positions across the Company,among other discriminatory acts. The Plaintiffs note that womenare actively discouraged from having children while working atDaiichi Sankyo.

Ms. Wellens lived and worked in Northern California. She beganworking for the Company in September 2009 until the present. Ms.Jensen lived and worked in Southern California. She began workingfor the Company in August 2008 until the present.

Ms. Pena lived and worked in Southern California. She worked forDaiichi Sankyo from May 2006 through November 2012, when theCompany terminated her employment because of herpregnancy/caregiver status, and in retaliation for her engaging inprotected conduct, including taking family and disability leave,as well as complaining about gender/pregnancy discrimination toDaiichi Sankyo's Human Resources department, the U.S. EqualEmployment Opportunity Commission, and the California Departmentof Fair Employment and Housing.

Ms. Giovanni lived and worked in Northern California. She workedfor Daiichi Sankyo from August 2009 through March 2012, when shewas forced to resign due to the discrimination she experienced.Ms. Hollinger lived and worked in Northern California. She workedfor Daiichi Sankyo from August 2008 to August 2012, when she wasforced to resign due to the discrimination she experienced. Ms.Bennie lived and worked in Southern California. She worked forDaiichi Sankyo from October 2006 to March 2012, when she wasforced to resign due to the discrimination she experienced.

Daiichi Sankyo is a pharmaceutical company that conductssubstantial business in California and employs personnel inCalifornia. The Company is based in Parsippany, New Jersey, andis incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware. DaiichiSankyo manufactures and sells cardiovascular, diabetes, andmetastatic melanoma therapies and pharmaceuticals. DaiichiSankyo's parent company -- Daiichi Sankyo Company, Ltd. -- is aJapan-based pharmaceutical drug giant that serves over fifty-fivecountries and employs over 30,000 workers worldwide.

EMCORE CORP: Consolidated Securities Class Litigation Has Ended---------------------------------------------------------------The consolidated securities litigation against EMCORE Corporationhas ended, according to the Company's February 6, 2013, Form 10-Qfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarter ended December 31, 2012.

On December 23, 2008, Plaintiffs Maurice Prissert and ClaudePrissert filed a purported stockholder class action (the "PrissertClass Action") pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23allegedly on behalf of a class of Company shareholders against theCompany and certain of its present and former directors andofficers (the "Individual Defendants") in the United StatesDistrict Court for the District of New Mexico captioned, MauricePrissert and Claude Prissert v. EMCORE Corporation, Adam Gushard,Hong Q. Hou, Reuben F. Richards, Jr., David Danzilio and ThomasWerthan, Case No. 1:08cv1190 (D.N.M.). The Complaint alleges thatthe Company and the Individual Defendants violated certainprovisions of the federal securities laws, including Section 10(b)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arising out of theCompany's disclosure regarding its customer Green and Gold Energy("GGE") and the associated backlog of GGE orders with theCompany's Photovoltaics business segment. The Complaint in thePrissert Class Action seeks, among other things, an unspecifiedamount of compensatory damages and other costs and expensesassociated with the maintenance of the action. On or aboutFebruary 12, 2009, a second purported stockholder class action(Mueller v. EMCORE Corporation et al., Case No. 1:09cv 133(D.N.M.)) (the "Mueller Class Action"), together with the PrissertClass Action, the "Class Actions") was filed in the United StatesDistrict Court for the District of New Mexico against the samedefendants named in the Prissert Class Action, based onsubstantially the same facts and circumstances, containingsubstantially the same allegations and seeking substantially thesame relief.

On September 25, 2009, the court issued an order consolidatingboth the Prissert and Mueller class actions into one consolidatedproceeding, but denied plaintiffs motions for appointment of alead plaintiff or lead plaintiff's counsel. On July 15, 2010, thecourt appointed IBEW Local Union No. 58 Annuity Fund to serve aslead plaintiff ("IBEW"), but denied, without prejudice, IBEW'smotion to appoint lead counsel. On August 24, 2010, IBEW filed arenewed motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and for approvalof its selection of counsel. IBEW filed a renewed motion forappointment of counsel on May 13, 2011, which the Company did notoppose. By Order dated September 30, 2011, the court appointedcounsel to act on behalf of the purported class. On November 14,2011, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint, againalleging violations of the federal securities laws arising out ofthe Company's disclosure regarding its customer GGE and theassociated backlog of GGE orders with the Company's Photovoltaicsbusiness segment (the "Amended Complaint"). The Company filed amotion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on January 9, 2012, and onSeptember 28, 2012, the court ruled in the Company's favor.

On November 9, 2012, the Company entered into a stipulation andagreement with the lead class representative, pursuant to whichthe parties agreed to release each other from all claims relatedto the matter and not to appeal the dismissal of the AmendedComplaint, effectively ending this litigation.

ENER1 INC: $4M Accord in Suit Over Failed Car Investment Gets OK----------------------------------------------------------------Brian Mahoney of BankruptcyLaw360 reported that a New York federaljudge signed off on a $4.2 million settlement between Ener1 Inc.and a consolidated class of shareholders suing the lithium-ionbattery manufacturer over its failed investments in Norwegianelectric carmaker Think Global AS.

The settlement order, signed by U.S. District Judge Paul Crotty,certifies a class of shareholders who had alleged Ener1 misledinvestors about the deleterious financial effects of itsinvestment in Think Global, the report related.

About Ener1

Ener1 Inc. (OTC: HEVV) -- http://www.ener1.com/-- is a New York- based developer of compact, lithium-ion-powered energy storagesolutions for applications in the electric utility, transportationand industrial electronics markets. It has three business lines:EnerDel, an 80.5% owned subsidiary, which is 19.5% owned byDelphi, develops Li-ion batteries, battery packs and componentssuch as Li-ion battery electrodes and lithium electroniccontrollers for lithium battery packs; EnerFuel develops fuel cellproducts and services; and NanoEner develops technologies,materials and equipment for nano-manufacturing.

Ener1, which received a $118 million U.S. Energy Department grantto make electric-car batteries, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 12-10299) on Jan. 26, 2012, to implementa prepackaged plan of reorganization. The Plan has beenunanimously accepted by all of Ener1's impaired creditors.

Judge Martin Glenn oversees the case. Reed Smith LLP is Ener1'slegal adviser and its financial adviser is Houlihan Lokey CapitalInc. The Garden City Group serves as its claims and noticingagent. In its petition, Ener1 estimated $73,900,000 in assets and$90,538,529 in liabilities. The petition was signed by AlexSorokin, interim chief executive officer.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New Yorkconfirmed the Company's Plan of Reorganization on Feb. 28, 2012,and the Plan became effective on March 30, 2012.

The Plan provides for a restructuring of the Company's long-termdebt and the infusion of up to $86 million of new capital pursuantto the terms and subject to the conditions of the equitycommitment agreement that will provide both exit financing andworking capital to conduct the continued operation of theCompany's consolidated subsidiaries. The first $55 million underthe Exit Financing will be provided by Bzinfin, and will becomprised of cash plus the principal amount outstanding under theDIP Facility, which amount will be converted into New PreferredStock. The balance of $31 million will be provided by Bzinfintogether with the other Participating Lenders.

Pursuant to the Plan, the Company's $57.3 million in outstandingprincipal amount of Tranche A and Tranche B 8.25% senior unsecurednotes, $10.0 million in outstanding principal amount of 6% seniorconvertible notes and the Company's Line of Credit Facility, underwhich $11.2 million principal is outstanding will be terminated inexchange for (i) a combination of shares of new common stock, parvalue $0.01 per share, issued by the reorganized Company.

Aside from the restructured long-term debt, the claims of generalunsecured creditors are unimpaired and will be paid by the Companyin full in the ordinary course of business pursuant to the Plan.

Pursuant to the Plan, all of the Company's currently outstandingCommon Stock will be canceled on the Effective Date withoutreceiving any distribution. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court in theSouthern District of New York confirmed the Company's Plan ofReorganization on Feb. 28, 2012, and the Plan became effective onMarch 30, 2012.

EXPEDIA INC: Awaits Ruling on Cert. Bid in "Pine Bluff" Suit------------------------------------------------------------Expedia, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on plaintiffs' motionfor class certification in the class action lawsuit filed by PineBluff Advertising and Promotion Commission and Jefferson County,according to the Company's February 6, 2013, Form 10-K filing withthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year endedDecember 31, 2012.

On September 25, 2009, Pine Bluff Advertising and PromotionCommission and Jefferson County filed a class action against anumber of online travel companies, including Expedia, Inc.,Hotels.com, and Hotwire. The lawsuit is captioned Pine BluffAdvertising and Promotion Commission, Jefferson County, Arkansas,and others similarly situated v. Hotels.com LP, et. al. CV-2009-946-5 (In the Circuit Court of Jefferson, Arkansas). Thecomplaint alleges that defendants have failed to collect and/orpay taxes under hotel tax occupancy ordinances. The court denieddefendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs have filed a motion forclass certification. On January 12, 2012, the court entered anorder staying the case for thirty days while it considers againwhether the plaintiff should be required to exhaust administrativeremedies. The court lifted the stay. The plaintiffs then filed amotion for class certification. A hearing on plaintiffs' motionfor class certification was held on November 19, 2012.

EXPEDIA INC: Awaits Ruling on Cert. Bid in "Breckenridge" Suit--------------------------------------------------------------Expedia, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on a motion for classcertification in the lawsuit initiated by the Town ofBreckenridge, according to the Company's February 6, 2013, Form10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission forthe year ended December 31, 2012.

On July 25, 2011, the Town of Breckenridge, Colorado, brought alawsuit on behalf of itself and other home rule municipalitiesagainst a number of online travel companies, including Hotels.com,Expedia and Hotwire. The lawsuit is captioned Town ofBreckenridge, Colorado v. Colorado Travel Company, LLC, Case No.2011CV420 (District Court, Summit County, Colorado). Thecomplaint includes claims for declaratory judgment, violations ofmunicipal ordinances, conversion, civil conspiracy and unjustenrichment. The online travel companies have filed a motion todismiss. On June 8, 2012, the court granted in part and denied inpart the online travel companies' motion to dismiss. On December12, 2012, plaintiff moved for class certification.

EXPEDIA INC: Bid for Summary Judgment in "Gallup" Suit Pending--------------------------------------------------------------Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the class actionlawsuit filed by the city of Gallup, New Mexico, remains pending,according to Expedia, Inc.'s February 6, 2013, Form 10-K filingwith the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the yearended December 31, 2012.

On May 17, 2006, the city of Gallup, New Mexico, filed a putativestatewide class action in state court against a number of internettravel companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire and Expedia. Thelawsuit is captioned City of Gallup, New Mexico, et al. v.Hotels.com, L.P., et al., CIV-06-0549 JC/RLP (United StatesDistrict Court, District of New Mexico). The case was removed tofederal court on June 23, 2006. The complaint alleges that thedefendants have failed to pay to the city hotel accommodationstaxes as required by municipal ordinances. The complaint assertsclaims for violation of those ordinances, conversion, anddeclaratory judgment. The complaint seeks damages in anunspecified amount, restitution and disgorgement. On April 18,2007, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to dismiss its ownlawsuit.

On July 6, 2007, the city of Gallup refiled its lawsuit.Plaintiff filed its first amended complaint on January 16, 2009.The court certified the class on July 7, 2009. On March 1, 2010,the court denied the city's motion for summary judgment and heldthat the online travel companies do not have tax obligations underthe city's ordinance and that defendants have not collected taxesthat have not been remitted. On February 18, 2011, defendantsfiled a motion for summary judgment.

EXPEDIA INC: Canadian Consumer Plaintiffs Obtain Class Standing---------------------------------------------------------------A Canadian court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff'smotion for class certification in the consumer lawsuit pending inOntario, Canada, according to Expedia, Inc.'s February 6, 2013,Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissionfor the year ended December 31, 2012.

On June 26, 2009, a class action lawsuit against Expedia CanadaCorporation was filed in Ontario, Canada, alleging thatdisclosures related to "taxes and service fees" were deceptive.The case is captioned Magill v. Expedia Canada Corporation andExpedia.ca, CV-09-381919-00LP (Ontario Superior Court of Justice).The complaint asserts claims under the Competition Act andConsumer Protection Act as well as claims of unjust enrichment,restitution, constructive trust, accounting and disgorgement andbreach of contract. It seeks damages in the amount of C$50million for the class as well as interest, fees and alternatedamages measures. On September 24, 2010, the court added Expedia,Inc. as a defendant and dismissed many of the plaintiff's claimswith leave to amend. The class period was also limited. Theplaintiff filed an amended statement of claim on January 7, 2011.

A class certification hearing took place from January 15 to 17,2013, and the court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff'smotion for class certification.

EXPEDIA INC: Continues to Face Suits Over Hotel Booking Practices-----------------------------------------------------------------Expedia, Inc. continues to face antitrust class action lawsuitsbrought against online travel companies over hotel bookingpractices, according to the Company's February 6, 2013, Form 10-Kfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for theyear ended December 31, 2012.

In July 2012, the United Kingdom Office of Fair Trading ("OFT"),the competition authority in the United Kingdom, issued aStatement of Objections alleging that Expedia and Booking.comentered into separate agreements with InterContinental HotelsGroup PLC ("IHG") that restricted each online travel company'sability to discount the price of IHG hotel rooms. The OFT limitedits investigation to a small number of companies, but has statedthat the investigation is likely to have wider implications forthe industry within the United Kingdom.

Since August 20, 2012, thirty-two putative class action lawsuits,which refer to the United Kingdom Office of Fair Trading ("OFT")'sStatement of Objections, have been initiated in the United Statesby consumer plaintiffs alleging claims against the online travelcompanies, including Expedia, and several major hotel chains foralleged resale price maintenance for online hotel roomreservations, including but not limited to violation of theSherman Act, state antitrust laws, state consumer protectionstatutes and common law tort claims, such as unjust enrichment.The parties moved before the Judicial Panel on Multi-DistrictLitigation for consolidation of the cases. On December 11, 2012,the Panel issued an order consolidating and transferring the casesto Judge Boyle in the United States District Court for theNorthern District of Texas.

On January 23, 2013, another purported class action was filed inthe U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.The lawsuit is captioned Gillespie v. Travelscape LLC, et al.(Case No. 1:13-cv-00531) alleging claims for violation of ShermanAct Section 1 and violation of the Washington Consumer ProtectionAct. This latter claim is based upon the allegation thatTravelscape, an Expedia, Inc. subsidiary, engages in deceptivepractices by bundling taxes and fees in hotel booking transactionswith consumers and not adequately disclosing the nature of theservice fees and taxes it collects. The plaintiff has filed amotion for class certification with the complaint. A conditionaltransfer of the antitrust claims to the Northern District of Texashas been granted. Plaintiff will separately proceed on herWashington Consumer Protection Act claim against Expedia.

EXPEDIA INC: Judgment in "San Antonio" Suit Expected This Year--------------------------------------------------------------Expedia, Inc. said in its February 6, 2013, Form 10-K filing withthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year endedDecember 31, 2012, that it anticipates a final judgment and finaldamages award early this year in the class action lawsuit broughtby the city of San Antonio, Texas.

On May 8, 2006, the city of San Antonio filed a putative statewideclass action in federal court against a number of internet travelcompanies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire, and Expedia. The suit iscaptioned City of San Antonio, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.,SA06CA0381 (United States District Court, Western District ofTexas, San Antonio Division). The complaint alleges that thedefendants have failed to pay to the city hotel accommodationstaxes as required by municipal ordinance. The complaint assertsclaims for violation of that ordinance, common-law conversion, anddeclaratory judgment. The complaint seeks damages in anunspecified amount, restitution and disgorgement. On October 30,2009, a jury verdict was entered finding that defendant onlinetravel companies "control hotels," and awarding approximately $15million for historical damages against the Expedia companies. Thejury also found that defendants were not liable for conversion orpunitive damages. The final amount of the judgment against theExpedia companies has not been determined. On July 1, 2011, thecourt entered findings of fact and conclusions of law holdingdefendant online travel companies liable for hotel occupancytaxes. The parties filed cross motions to amend the court'sfindings of fact and conclusions of law.

On January 16, 2013, the court denied the defendants' motion toamend. On January 17, 2013, the court denied the cities' motionto add and amend findings of fact and conclusions of law regardingthe calculation of penalties. On January 29, 2013, the courtissued amended findings of fact and conclusions of law. TheCompany anticipates a final judgment and final damages award inearly 2013.

EXPEDIA INC: Goodlettsville & Brentwood Did Not Appeal Judgment---------------------------------------------------------------Expedia, Inc. said in its February 6, 2013, Form 10-K filing withthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year endedDecember 31, 2012, that the cities of Goodlettsville andBrentwood, Tennessee, did not appeal the denial of their motionfor summary judgment.

On June 2, 2008, the cities of Goodlettsville and Brentwood,Tennessee, filed a putative class action in federal court againsta number of internet travel companies, including Expedia,Hotels.com, and Hotwire. The lawsuit is captioned City ofGoodlettsville and City of Brentwood v. Priceline.com, Inc., etal., 3-08-0561 (United States District Court for the MiddleDistrict of Tennessee). The complaint alleges that the defendantshave failed to pay to the cities hotel accommodations taxes asrequired by municipal ordinance. The complaint asserts claims forviolation of the local ordinance, as well as claims for unjustenrichment and conversion, and seeks damages in an unspecifiedamount. Plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed the City ofBrentwood's claims. Class certification has been granted. Theparties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On February 21,2012, the court granted the online travel companies' motion anddenied the cities' motion and held that online travel companiesare not liable to remit hotel occupancy taxes. The cities did notappeal.

EXPEDIA INC: Hearing in "Los Angeles" Suit Set for April 18-----------------------------------------------------------A hearing on cross-motions for judgment granting or denying a writof mandate in the class action lawsuit commenced by the city ofLos Angeles is scheduled for April 18, 2013, according to Expedia,Inc.'s February 6, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securitiesand Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On December 30, 2004, the city of Los Angeles filed a purportedclass action in California state court against a number ofInternet travel companies, including Hotels.com, Expedia andHotwire. The lawsuit is captioned City of Los Angeles,California, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situatedv. Hotels.com, L.P. et al., No. BC326693 (Superior Court, LosAngeles County). The complaint alleges that the defendants areimproperly charging and/or failing to pay hotel occupancy taxes.The complaint seeks certification of a statewide class of allCalifornia cities and counties that have enacted uniform transientoccupancy-tax ordinances effective on or afterDecember 30, 1990. The complaint alleges violation of thoseordinances, violation of Section 17200 of the California Businessand Professions Code, and common-law conversion. The complaintalso seeks a declaratory judgment that the defendants are subjectto hotel occupancy taxes on the hotel rate charged to consumersand imposition of a constructive trust on all monies owed by thedefendants to the government, as well as disgorgement,restitution, interest and penalties. On July 26, 2007, the courtsigned an order staying the lawsuit until the cities haveexhausted their administrative remedies. The case is coordinatedwith the cases in San Diego, Anaheim, Santa Monica and SanFrancisco. On September 9, 2009, the City of Los Angeles issuedassessments totaling $29.5 million against Expedia companies(Expedia, Hotels.com and Hotwire). An administrative hearingchallenging the assessments was held on December 3, 2009. OnSeptember 16, 2010, the assessment review officer approved theassessments. A second level administrative review hearing washeld in December 2010. On August 16, 2011, the Board of Reviewentered a decision holding Hotels.com, Expedia and Hotwire liablefor hotel occupancy taxes. The city of Los Angeles' claims willnow be heard by the trial court in the consolidated actioninvolving claims brought by other cities in California, includingAnaheim, Santa Monica, San Diego and San Francisco.

On January 17, 2013, the parties filed motions for judgmentgranting or denying a writ of mandate. A hearing on those cross-motions is scheduled for April 18, 2013.

EXPEDIA INC: Class Cert. Hearing in "Nassau" Suit on April 9-------------------------------------------------------------The hearing on plaintiff's motion for class certification in thelawsuit initiated by Nassau County, New York, is scheduled forApril 9, 2013, according to Expedia, Inc.'s February 6, 2013, Form10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission forthe year ended December 31, 2012.

On October 24, 2006, the county of Nassau, New York, filed aputative statewide class action in federal court against a numberof internet travel companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire, andExpedia. The lawsuit is captioned Nassau County, New York, et al.v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., (United States District Court,Eastern District of New York). The complaint alleges that thedefendants have failed to pay hotel accommodation taxes asrequired by local ordinances to certain New York cities, countiesand local governments in New York. The complaint asserts claimsfor violations of those ordinances, as well as claims forconversion, unjust enrichment, and imposition of a constructivetrust, and seeks unspecified damages. On August 17, 2007, thecourt granted defendants' motion dismissing the lawsuit due to theplaintiff's failure to exhaust its administrative remedies.Subsequently, on August 11, 2009, the Second Circuit remanded thecase for the district court to determine whether classcertification is appropriate. The district court has ordered theparties to proceed with class certification. The countysubsequently dismissed its case on May 13, 2011 for lack ofjurisdiction and refiled in state court, County of Nassau v.Expedia, Inc., et al., (In the Supreme Court of the State of NewYork, County of Nassau). The defendants filed a motion todismiss. On June 13, 2012, the court denied the online travelcompanies' motion to dismiss.

On November 27, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion for classcertification. A hearing on that motion is scheduled forApril 9, 2013.

EXPEDIA INC: Hotwire Faces Two Consumer Suits in Connecticut------------------------------------------------------------Expedia, Inc.'s subsidiary is facing two class action lawsuits inConnecticut, according to the Company's February 6, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for theyear ended December 31, 2012.

On September 12, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filedin federal district court in Connecticut against a number ofcredit card companies and e-commerce companies, including Hotwire.The lawsuit is captioned Miller, et al. v. 1-800-Flowers.com,Inc., et al., Case No. 3:12-CV-00396-VLB (U.S. District Court,District of Connecticut). The complaint generally alleges thatthe defendants failed to adequately apprise consumers that theywere providing their credit card information to TrilegiantCorporation, which offered membership in discount or otherservices programs through promotions appearing on the e-commercedefendants' Web sites. The complaint asserts claims againstHotwire for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and CorruptOrganizations Act ("RICO"), the Electronic Communications PrivacyAct, state consumer protection statutes and for unjust enrichment.On December 7, 2012, Hotwire filed a motion to dismiss thecomplaint. On December 5, 2012, a similar putative class actionlawsuit was filed in federal district court in Connecticut againsta number of credit card companies and e-commerce companies,including Hotwire, Frank, et al. v. Trilegiant Corporation, Inc.,et al., Case No. 3:12-CV-01721-SRU (U.S. District Court, Districtof Connecticut).

EXPEDIA INC: Miami-Dade Litigation Over Occupancy Taxes Stayed--------------------------------------------------------------Expedia, Inc.'s lawsuits against Miami-Dade for refund of hoteloccupancy taxes is stayed, according to the Company's February 6,2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On December 18, 2009, Expedia, Inc., Hotwire and Hotels.combrought lawsuits against Miami-Dade for refund of hotel occupancytaxes assessed against the companies. The lawsuit is captionedExpedia, Inc. v. Miami-Dade County, Florida and Florida Departmentof Revenue, Cause No. 09CA4978 (In the Circuit Court of the SecondJudicial Circuit in and for Leon County); Hotwire, Inc. v. Miami-Dade County, Cause No. 09CA4977 (In the Circuit Court of theSecond Judicial Circuit in and for Leon County); Hotels.com, L.P.v. Miami-Dade County, Florida and Florida Department of Revenue,Cause No. 09CA4979 (In the Circuit Court of the Second JudicialCircuit in and for Leon County). The companies moved to dismissMiami-Dade's counterclaims. These cases have been consolidatedwith the cases brought by other online travel companies for refundof hotel occupancy taxes. Miami-Dade County's claims were settledas a part of the Monroe class action settlement. The claimsrelating to tourist development tax have been dismissed. Theclaims relating to convention development tax remain. OnSeptember 25, 2012, the court issued an order staying all furtherproceedings in the case pending a final appellate determination inthe Leon County litigation.

EXPEDIA INC: Rome and Cartersville Appeal Class Action Judgment---------------------------------------------------------------The cities of Rome and Cartersville have appealed a judgment intheir class action lawsuit against Expedia, Inc., et al.,according to the Company's February 6, 2013, Form 10-K filing withthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year endedDecember 31, 2012.

On November 18, 2005, the city of Rome, Georgia, Hart County,Georgia, and the city of Cartersville, Georgia, filed a purportedstatewide class action in federal court against a number ofinternet travel companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire andExpedia. The lawsuit is captioned City of Rome, Georgia, et al.v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., No. 4:05-CV-249 (U.S. District Court,Northern District of Georgia, Rome Division). The complaintalleges that the defendants have failed to pay to the counties andcities the hotel accommodations taxes as required by municipalordinances. The complaint asserts claims for violation of exciseand sales and use tax ordinances, conversion, unjust enrichment,imposition of a constructive trust, declaratory relief andinjunctive relief. The complaint seeks damages and other reliefin an unspecified amount. On May 9, 2006, the court granted inpart and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss. On June 8,2006, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding sixteen moremunicipalities and political subdivisions as named plaintiffs. OnMay 10, 2007, the court stayed the litigation, concluding that theplaintiffs must exhaust their administrative remedies beforecontinuing to litigate their tax claims. On July 10, 2009, thecourt lifted the stay of the litigation. The court granted inpart plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Based on priorGeorgia Supreme Court precedent, on September 23, 2011, defendantsfiled a motion to deposit funds into the court for the payment offuture hotel occupancy taxes. The parties subsequently filed amotion for approval of partial settlement for the deposit offuture hotel occupancy taxes. The court approved the settlementon August 16, 2012. The parties filed cross-motions for summaryjudgment. On July 9, 2012, the court ruled on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. The court held that the onlinetravel companies were not previously subject to hotel occupancytaxes; therefore, past taxes are not due to counties and cities inthe State of Georgia. Nevertheless, going forward, the court heldthat online travel companies are obligated to collect hoteloccupancy taxes under the parties' settlement agreement.Plaintiffs have appealed.

EXPEDIA INC: Trial in "McAllister" Suit Set for Sept. 2013----------------------------------------------------------Trial is currently set for September 2013 in the class actionlawsuit commenced by two citizens of Arkansas, according toExpedia, Inc.'s February 6, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the year endedDecember 31, 2012.

On February 22, 2011, two citizens representing a proposed classof all citizen-taxpayers in the State of Arkansas brought lawsuitagainst a number of online travel companies, including Hotels.com,Expedia and Hotwire. The lawsuit is captioned McAllister v.Hotels.com, et al., Case No. CV 2011-125-2 (Circuit Court ofSaline County Arkansas). The complaint includes claims fordeclaratory and injunctive relief. The defendant online travelcompanies filed a motion to dismiss. On February 2, 2012, thecourt denied the defendant online travel companies' motion todismiss. Trial is currently set for September 2013.

The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement falls within therange of possible approval, and preliminarily approves it as fair,adequate, and reasonable, subject to further consideration at thefinal approval and fairness hearing.

The Court certified the settlement class as: "All persons employedby Defendant in California in a non-exempt position at any timebetween February 25, 2005 through August 1, 2012."

FedEx Office and Print Services, Inc. will provide the SettlementAdministrator and Class Counsel information about Class Members,as specified in the Settlement Agreement.

The Final Approval and Fairness Hearing will be held June 17,2013, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 2.

Class Counsel will file their papers in support of final approvalof the settlement on or before May 13, 2013.

Any opposition by Class Members to the settlement itself,counsel's motion for attorney fees and costs, or ClassRepresentatives' applications for Enhancement Payment awards willbe filed on or before May 27, 2013.

Any Class Member who wishes to be excluded from the Class mustmake a written request for exclusion in compliance with theinstructions contained in the Settlement Agreement and the NoticePacket. Requests for exclusion from the Class must be returnedpostmarked no later than 45 calendar days after the initialmailing of the Notice Packet. Any Class Member who does notrequest exclusion will be bound by the Settlement Agreement.

All proceedings in this matter except those contemplated and aspart of the Settlement Agreement are stayed.

A copy of the District Court's February 8, 2013 Order is availableat http://is.gd/xmDyjLfrom Leagle.com.

FOREST PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Certification in Celexa Suit Denied-----------------------------------------------------------------Lorraine Bailey at Courthouse News Service reports that a federaljudge refused to certify a nationwide class of children and teenswho took the antidepressants Celexa or Lexapro, which are approvedonly for adults.

Beginning in 2009, Forest Pharmaceuticals faced a rash of classactions that accused it of improperly marketing Celexa and Lexaproto children and adolescents.

In Celexa's case, the Food and Drug Administration specificallydenied approval for pediatric use, after a study found morepediatric patients who took Celexa attempted suicide or reportedsuicidal thoughts than those taking the placebo.

Forest allegedly still promoted the drug for children, and paidkickbacks to physicians for prescribing the drugs, including cashpayments disguised as consulting fees and expensive meals.

The cases were consolidated for multidistrict litigation inMassachusetts, but four cases were voluntarily dismissed in 2010and a fifth case was dismissed without prejudice at the end ofthat year. With just two cases remaining, U.S. District JudgeNathaniel Gorton refused to grant class certification last week.

"At oral argument all parties acknowledged that the sales callswere made in plaintiffs' home states by sales representativeslocated in those states," he wrote. "Moreover, the actions inreliance on those false statements, including the purchase of themedications by plaintiffs, were also made in plaintiffs' homestates."

The plaintiffs had urged the court to apply Missouri law since thefirst case was filed there, but the court agreed with Forest thatthe law of each plaintiff's home state must apply, "rendering aclass action infeasible."

"Although plaintiffs correctly advise that Missouri has aninterest in policing the behavior of corporations within itsborders, that interest does not outweigh the justifiedexpectations of consumers that the laws of their home states willapply," Judge Gorton found.

The ruling acknowledges that "individual claim of each classmember is likely to be relatively small and limited toreimbursement for prescription costs and/or co-pays."

Though it may be "prohibitively expensive to litigateindividually," Forest said "a class action applying the law ofmany (presumably all 50) states would simply be unmanageable."(Parentheses in original.)

GOLDEN CORRAL: Faces Class Action Over Food Safety Violations-------------------------------------------------------------Anthony Pollreisz, writing for K2 News, reports that with the helpof a major Seattle-based firm, a Casper law firm has filed a classaction lawsuit in U.S. District Court against the North Carolina-based Golden Corral Corporation just days after the WyomingDepartment of Health published an official report linking aCasper-based Golden Corral franchise to a Norovirus outbreak thatleft several hundred people ill.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages equivalent to total meal cost,medical expenses and "all other ordinary, incidental andconsequential" expenses.

The plaintiffs will be represented by Ochs Law Firm of Casper andMarler Clark of Seattle.

Marler Clark, which bills itself as "the food safety law firm,"claims it was lead council during a five-year trial against Jackin the Box, Inc. following an E. coli outbreak at a Jack in theBox restaurant in Washington state that left 20 childrenhospitalized. Marler Clark says it also represented plaintiffs inMassachusetts, Pennsylvania and Illinois-based food safety andfood poisoning cases.

In a report released by the Wyoming Department of Health, at least305 customers became ill after eating at the Casper Golden Corralrestaurant between Nov. 17 and Dec. 19 of 2012.

According to the report, health investigators were able toidentify several environmental health concerns at the restaurantthrough customer and employee interviews. Concerns were raisedabout employees restocking unwashed dishes in the buffet line,employees working while sick, employees not handling food withgloved hands, employees serving raw or undercooked food andemployees cross-contaminating between raw and uncooked foods.

Health investigators also received reports of customers vomitingin the main dining room and restroom areas.

As outlined in the state report, officials with the Casper-NatronaCounty Health Department found several health violations during aninspection on Dec. 12. Management voluntarily closed therestaurant on Dec. 13 for extensive cleaning. The restaurantreopened the next day.

In court documents, Marler Clark and Ochs Law Firm say there couldbe as many as 7,000 plaintiffs, as officials say that is thenumber of customers served during the outbreak.

At a hearing in Los Angeles County Superior Court on Feb. 8, JudgeJane L. Johnson granted Google's request to dismiss the lawsuit,but gave the plaintiffs 30 days to amend their complaint.

INTERCONTINENTALEXCHANGE INC: Merger Suits Pending in Del. & N.Y.-----------------------------------------------------------------Merger-related class action lawsuits are pending in Delaware andNew York, according to IntercontinentalExchange, Inc.'sFebruary 6, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On December 20, 2012, the Company announced an agreement toacquire NYSE Euronext in a stock and cash transaction. Thetransaction, which was unanimously approved by the board ofdirectors of both companies, is currently valued at approximately$8.6 billion, based on the closing price of the Company's stock onJanuary 31, 2013. The final purchase price will be based on theactual market price per share of IntercontinentalExchange, Inc.("ICE") common stock on the closing date of the acquisition, whichis anticipated in the second half of 2013, subject to regulatoryapprovals. NYSE Euronext is a holding company that, through itssubsidiaries, operates the following securities exchanges: the NewYork Stock Exchange, NYSE Arca, Inc. and NYSE MKT LLC in theUnited States and the European-based exchanges that compriseEuronext N.V. -- the Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels and Lisbon stockexchanges, as well as the NYSE Liffe derivatives markets inLondon, Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels and Lisbon. Upon the closingof the acquisition, NYSE Euronext will merge with and into awholly-owned subsidiary of ICE.

The Delaware and New York Actions are very similar. All twelveactions name the Company as a defendant and also name NYSEEuronext and the members of its board of directors as defendants.Certain of the actions also name Baseball Merger Sub, LLC, whichis a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company's that was created forpurposes of this acquisition. All twelve complaints allege thatthe members of the NYSE Euronext board of directors breached theirfiduciary duties by agreeing to an acquisition agreement thatundervalues NYSE Euronext. Among other things, plaintiffs allegethat the members of the NYSE Euronext board of directors failed tomaximize the value of NYSE Euronext to its public stockholders,negotiated a transaction in their best interests to the detrimentof the NYSE Euronext public stockholders, and agreed to supposedlypreclusive deal protection measures that unfairly detercompetitive offers. The Company (and, in some of the actions,NYSE Euronext and/or Baseball Merger Sub) are alleged to haveaided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty by the members ofthe NYSE Euronext board of directors. The lawsuits seek, amongother things, (i) an injunction enjoining the consummation of theacquisition; and/or (ii) rescission of the acquisition, to theextent already implemented, or alternatively rescissory damages.Certain of the actions seek an injunction prohibiting the Companyand NYSE Euronext from initiating any defensive measures.

On January 16, 2013, three of the plaintiffs in the DelawareActions, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority,Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System and SheetMetal Workers' Pension Fund of Local Union 19, jointly moved forexpedited proceedings. The motion to expedite requests anexpedited schedule and the setting of a hearing on a motion for apreliminary injunction in advance of the stockholder vote on themerger. On January 17, 2013, Plaintiffs Southeastern PennsylvaniaTransportation Authority, Louisiana Municipal Police Employees'Retirement System, Sheet Metal Workers' Pension Fund and WelfareFund of Local Union 19, and LBBW Asset ManagementInvestmentgesellschaft MBH moved for consolidation and appointmentof lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in the Delaware Actions. OnJanuary 25, 2013, Plaintiff John and Patricia Mayer cross movedfor appointment as lead or co-lead plaintiffs and approval oftheir selection of lead counsel. By Order dated January 29, 2013,the Court of Chancery consolidated the Delaware Actions andappointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On January 31, 2013,lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint which,among other things, adds allegations contending that thepreliminary proxy statement filed by NYSE Euronext containsmisstatements or omissions regarding the transaction and thefirm's business prospects.

On January 3, 2013, the plaintiffs in the New York Actions movedfor consolidation and appointment of lead counsel in the New YorkActions. On January 28, 2013, the court entered an Orderconsolidating the New York Actions and appointing lead counsel.On January 30, 2013, the defendants moved to dismiss or stay theNew York Actions based upon, among other things, the substantiallyidentical, earlier filed Delaware proceedings. That motionremains pending.

The Company believes the allegations in the complaints in theDelaware Actions and the New York Actions are without merit, andintends to defend them vigorously.

INTERNATIONAL GAME: Class Cert. Bid Pending in "Babstock" Suit--------------------------------------------------------------International Game Technology is awaiting a court decision on amotion for class certification in the lawsuit initiated byBabstock and Small, according to the Company's February 6, 2013,Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissionfor the quarter ended December 29, 2012.

In an action brought in the Supreme Court of New Foundland andLabrador by Babstock and Small as representatives of a purportedclass of persons allegedly harmed by video lottery terminal (VLT)gaming in the Province of New Foundland and Labrador; AtlanticLottery Corporation has impleaded VLC, Inc. IGT-Canada, Inc.,International Game Technology and other third party defendantsseeking indemnification for any judgment recovered againstAtlantic Lottery Corporation in the main action. Plaintiffs fileda motion for class action certification on September 17, 2012. Nohearing date for the motion on class certification has been set.

Las Vegas, Nevada-based International Game Technology is a globalcompany specializing in the design, manufacture, and marketing ofelectronic gaming equipment and systems products. The Company isa supplier of gaming products in substantially all legaljurisdictions worldwide and provides a diverse offering of qualityproducts and services at competitive prices, designed to increasethe potential for gaming operator profits by enhancing theplayer's experience.

INTERNATIONAL GAME: ERISA Suit Settlement Gets Prelim. Approval---------------------------------------------------------------International Game Technology received preliminary approval of itssettlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit brought underthe Employee Retirement Income Security Act, according to theCompany's February 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter endedDecember 29, 2012.

On October 2, 2009, two putative class action lawsuits were filedon behalf of participants in the Company's employee pension plans,naming as defendants the Company, the IGT Profit Sharing PlanCommittee, and several current and former officers and directors.The actions, filed in the US District Court for the District ofNevada, are captioned Carr et al. v. International Game Technologyet al., Case No. 3:09-cv-00584, and Jordan et al. v. InternationalGame Technology et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-00585. The actions wereconsolidated. The consolidated complaint (which seeks unspecifieddamages) asserts claims under the Employee Retirement IncomeSecurity Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 1109 and 1132.

The consolidated complaint is based on allegations similar tothose in the securities and derivative lawsuits, and furtheralleges that the defendants breached fiduciary duties to planparticipants by failing to disclose material facts to planparticipants, failing to exercise their fiduciary duties solely inthe interest of the participants, failing to properly manage planassets, and permitting participants to elect to invest in Companystock. In March 2011, the defendants' motion to dismiss theconsolidated complaint was granted in part and denied in part. OnMarch 16, 2012, the Court denied plaintiff's motion for classcertification. On December 21, 2012, the parties submitted astipulation to settle the litigation for a payment of $500,000 andup to $25,000 towards settlement administrative expenses, whichwas accrued for in the Company's 2013 first quarter.

On January 22, 2013, the Court granted preliminary approval of thesettlement.

Las Vegas, Nevada-based International Game Technology is a globalcompany specializing in the design, manufacture, and marketing ofelectronic gaming equipment and systems products. The Company isa supplier of gaming products in substantially all legaljurisdictions worldwide and provides a diverse offering of qualityproducts and services at competitive prices, designed to increasethe potential for gaming operator profits by enhancing theplayer's experience.

INTERNATIONAL GAME: Settlement in "IBEW" Suit Approved in Oct.--------------------------------------------------------------International Game Technology's settlement of the class actionlawsuit filed by the International Brotherhood of ElectricalWorkers Local 697 was approved in October 2012, according to theCompany's February 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter endedDecember 29, 2012.

On July 30, 2009, International Brotherhood of Electrical WorkersLocal 697 filed a putative securities fraud class action in the USDistrict Court for the District of Nevada, alleging causes ofaction under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act againstInternational Game Technology (IGT) and certain of its current andformer officers and directors. The complaint alleges that betweenNovember 1, 2007, and October 30, 2008, the defendants inflatedIGT's stock price through a series of materially false andmisleading statements or omissions regarding IGT's business,operations, and prospects. In April 2010, plaintiffs filed anamended complaint. In March 2011, defendants' motion to dismissthat complaint was granted in part and denied in part. The Courtfound that the allegations concerning statements about theseasonality of game play levels and announcements of projects withHarrah's and City Center were sufficient to state a claim.Plaintiffs did not state a claim based on the remaining statementsabout earnings, operating expense, or forward-looking statementsabout play levels and server-based technology.

The parties have settled this action. On February 1, 2012, at thedirection of the Court, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of PendingSettlement. On March 28, 2012, the parties submitted to the Courta stipulation to settle the litigation for a payment of $12.5million. On March 30, 2012, the Court issued an order ofpreliminary approval and the settlement was paid into escrow byinsurance in April 2012. The Court approved the stipulatedsettlement on October 19, 2012.

Las Vegas, Nevada-based International Game Technology is a globalcompany specializing in the design, manufacture, and marketing ofelectronic gaming equipment and systems products. The Company isa supplier of gaming products in substantially all legaljurisdictions worldwide and provides a diverse offering of qualityproducts and services at competitive prices, designed to increasethe potential for gaming operator profits by enhancing theplayer's experience.

KEYSTONE MANAGEMENT: Fire Victims Get Okay to File Class Action---------------------------------------------------------------Jan Ransom, writing for Philly.com, reports that two years after amonstrous blaze tore through a West Philadelphia apartmentbuilding, leaving hundreds homeless, the tenants have been givenapproval by Common Pleas Court to file a class-action lawsuitagainst the building's owners.

It took 140 firefighters to extinguish the five-alarm blaze thatengulfed the four-story Windermere Court apartments, on 48thstreet near Walnut, in January 2011.

The tenants are seeking monetary compensation for damages,claiming that the building's owners, brothers David, Sam and AronGinsberg, of Keystone Management Group, were negligent by failingto install a functioning fire-alarm and sprinkler system.

The suit, filed in May 2011, names former tenants Theodore Schalland John Brendan Farley as plaintiffs. They are claiming morethan $50,000 and $17,000 in property damage, respectively. Thesuit now will include all tenants. A judge on Feb. 6 approved theclass action.

"These people lost everything," said Thomas More Marrone, thetenants' attorney. "These are really good people who are fromother countries, students . . . they shouldn't have to go throughthis to get some compensation."

U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman rejected most of KPMG's motion todismiss the majority of the women's claims, finding that their"allegations suffice to survive at this stage of the proceedings."

In the case, the women argue that the accounting firm created ahostile work environment that left female employees lagging behindin pay and promotions, particularly those with children. Thelawsuit is seeking $350 million in lost salary and benefits aswell as other damages.

In a statement, KPMG said the lawsuit is "entirely without merit."

"Diversity and inclusion have long been priorities for the firm,and they are woven into our culture and everything we do," thecompany said.

KPMG argued in court papers that the women, as former employees,could not assert class status under a 2011 U.S. Supreme Courtruling that derailed a nationwide discrimination class actionagainst Wal-Mart. That ruling, in Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes,denied certification on the grounds that 1.5 million current andformer Wal-Mart female workers could not show they shared commoninjuries.

But Judge Furman found that KPMG's argument was premature, sincethe lawsuit had not yet progressed to the class certificationstage. It is "plausible" that the women in the KPMG case willprovide enough evidence to allow certification, based on theirallegations about a number of specific companywide discriminatorypolicies, he wrote.

Judge Furman limited or struck a handful of claims but allowed themajority of the complaint to move forward.

Katherine Kimpel -- kkimpel@sanfordheisler.com -- lead counsel forthe plaintiffs, said the decision, together with other rulings onthe Dukes issue, served as a rebuke to the "overbroad" applicationof the Supreme Court case.

The case was brought by law firm Sanford Wittels & Heisler, whichhas filed a series of gender discrimination suits in recent yearsagainst major corporations and settled a similar case againstNovartis AG in 2010 for $175 million. The corporations includeFrench advertising company Publicis Group SA, Japanese electronicsmaker Toshiba Corp, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals and healthinsurer Cigna Corp.

The case is Kassman v. KPMG LLP, U.S. District Court, SouthernDistrict of New York, No. 11-cv-3743.

MACMILLAN: Settles E-book Consumer Class Action for $20 Million---------------------------------------------------------------Andrew Albanese, writing for Publishers Weekly, reports that in aproposed settlement disclosed on February 8, Macmillan has agreedto pay up to $20 million to settle price-fixing suits filed by agroup of states' attorneys general, and a consolidated consumerclass action, led by Seattle-based firm Hagens Berman.

While the Macmillan settlement must still be approved by thecourt, the announcement suggests that the two-year-old legal dramaover e-book pricing may finally be drawing down for the accusedpublishers: all five have now settled with the U.S. Department ofJustice, and as PW reported, on February 8, Judge Denise Cote gavefinal approval to the previously agreed to $70-plus million statesettlement (with Hachette, HarperCollins, and Simon & Schuster)after a swift, 15-minute public "fairness" hearing, signing theorder from the bench. The consumer class action is the third, andfinal, hurdle.

The states' case, and the consumer class action case continuesagainst Penguin and Apple, with a June trial still on track.

Meanwhile, Judge Cote's approval on Feb. 8 clears the way for thefirst credits and refunds to begin flowing to consumers, with thefund to be left open to distribute additional funds as they arecollected. If Judge Cote's final approval order is not appealed,(and we should know within 30 days if that is the case) paymentsand credits could be issued by Spring. An appeal, meanwhile,seems unlikley, as Judge Cote noted from the bench that there wereonly four objections to the state settlement, none of whichpertained to the settlement terms, just 100 people opted out ofthe settlement, and no one showed up to speak against thesettlement at the fairness hearing.

At press time, it remained unclear how the consolidated consumerclass action suit, first filed in 2011, was playing out alongsidethe state claims, which had already set up a mechanism toreimburse consumers for alleged price-fixing. Although nospecific consumer class action settlements were announced withHachette, HarperCollins, and S&S, it is likely those firms'initial settlements with states' attorneys mooted the class actioncase.

In a Hagens Berman release, Steve Berman, managing partner ofHagens Berman and lead counsel for the proposed class ofconsumers, said the firm worked "alongside" 33 states attorneysgeneral and the DoJ to "present a unified front in dealing withMacmillan."

The deal with Macmillan adds an additional $20 million to the potof money that will be used to reimburse e-book purchasersallegedly wronged by price-fixing. In the state settlement,Hachette has agreed to pay $31,711,425; HarperCollins,$19,575,246; and Simon & Schuster, $17,752,480.

In agreeing to settle, none of the publishers has admitted anywrongdoing, and each has denied engaging in an illegal conspiracywith Apple to inflate e-book prices.

At press time, it was unclear if Penguin was also moving toward asettlement with the States, and with Hagens Berman. In hisstatement, Berman would only say that the firm was "moving theconsumer class-action litigation forward against the remainingdefendants, Penguin and Apple."

MADISON SQUARE: New York Suit Currently in Discovery Phase----------------------------------------------------------A consolidated class action lawsuit in New York is now in thediscovery phase, according to The Madison Square Garden Company'sFebruary 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2012.

In March 2012, the Company was named as a defendant in twopurported class action antitrust lawsuits brought in the UnitedStates District Court for the Southern District of New Yorkagainst the National Hockey League (the "NHL") and certain NHLmember clubs, regional sports networks and cable and satellitedistributors. The complaints, which are substantially identical,primarily assert that certain of the NHL's current rules andagreements entered into by defendants, which are alleged by theplaintiffs to provide certain territorial and other exclusivitieswith respect to the television and online distribution of livehockey games, violate Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman AntitrustAct. The complaints seek injunctive relief against thedefendants' continued violation of the antitrust laws, trebledamages, attorneys' fees and pre- and post-judgment interest. OnJuly 27, 2012, the Company and the other defendants filed a motionto dismiss the complaints (which have been consolidated forprocedural purposes). On December 5, 2012, the Court issued anOpinion and Order largely denying the motion to dismiss and thecase is now in the discovery phase. The Company says it intendsto vigorously defend the claims against the Company. Managementdoes not believe this matter will have a material adverse effecton the Company.

MCDONALD'S: Bid For More People to Join Class Action Rebuffed-------------------------------------------------------------Joe Slezak, writing for Press & Guide, reports that a Dearbornattorney's bid to allow those who unknowingly ate non-halalchicken at a McDonald's restaurant join a class-action lawsuit wasrebuffed on Feb. 7.

Majed Moughni, who runs the Facebook site Dearborn Area CommunityMembers, thought it was unfair that $700,000 is to be dividedamong four parties, only one of whom ate the food.

Wayne County Circuit Judge Kathleen MacDonald ruled Jan. 18 thatAhmed Ahmed of Dearborn Heights, who filed the suit, would get$20,000; the Health Unit on Davison Avenue Inc. in Detroit, alsoknown as HUDA, would get $274,000; the Arab American NationalMuseum in Dearborn would get about $150,000; and attorneys wouldget $230,000.

The final details are to be determined at a hearing March 1.

Mr. Ahmed filed the suit in September 2011 alleging that theMcDonald's at 13158 Ford Road, Dearborn, sold chicken that wasn'thalal, which means it didn't meet Islamic requirements for foodpreparation.

Soon after the ruling, Mr. Moughni posted on Dearborn AreaCommunity Members' Facebook page that the settlement should go tothose who ate "haram" chicken, and asked page members to leavecontact information for themselves and others who ate the meat.

As of Jan. 24, the campaign had nearly 700 "likes," nearly 600comments and 60 "shares."

Judge Macdonald ruled on Feb. 7 that Mr. Moughni must remove allinformation regarding his efforts in the case, and post the courtorder and class-action notice from Jan. 18 and her Feb. 7 ruling.

He had complied as of Feb. 8.

She ordered Mr. Moughni to turn over a list of those who postedstatements about the case, those who "liked" his post and allinformation in each response, including names and contactinformation.

Judge MacDonald also said she reserves the right to refer Mr.Moughni to the Attorney Grievance Commission of Michigan andrequire him to pay fees to attorneys on both sides.

She ruled that statements about the preliminary settlement were"materially false, deceptive and misleading" and he engaged in"deliberate and abusive conduct which has created a likelihood ofconfusion of class members, adversely has effected (sic) theadministration of justice and had undermined this court'sresponsibility and authority to protect class members from suchabuses."

Mr. Moughni was prohibited from communicating with class-actionlawsuit members and the media about the case without advanceapproval in writing by Judge MacDonald and the plantiffs'attorneys, Jaafer & Mahdi Law Group P.C. of Dearborn.

NCR CORP: "De Leon" Suit Remanded to Alameda County Superior Court------------------------------------------------------------------District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong remanded to the SuperiorCourt of the State of California, County of Alameda, the lawsuitcaptioned RON DE LEON and ERNESTO FAJARDO, on behalf of themselvesand all others similarly situated and on behalf of the generalpublic, Plaintiffs, v. NCR CORPORATION, and DOES 1 through 10,inclusive, Defendants, Case No. C 12-01637 SBA, (N.D. Cal.).

The Court concludes that NCR has failed to sustain its burden toestablish by a legal certainty that the amount in controversyexceeds $5,000,000. Accordingly, Judge Brown said the ClassAction Fairness Act provides no basis for exercising jurisdictionin this case.

The putative wage and hour class action was filed in the AlamedaCounty Superior Court but was removed to the U.S. District Courtfor the Northern District of California Court pursuant to theClass Action Fairness Act. The Plaintiffs seek compensatorydamages for unpaid wages and other compensation owed, liquidateddamages, restitution, penalties, interest, attorneys' fees, andcosts.

NCR is a Maryland corporation that installs, services, and repairscash dispensing machines and point of sale machines for clientsthroughout California. The Plaintiffs were employed by theDefendant as non-exempt hourly customer engineers.

A copy of the District Court's February 8, 2013 Order is availableat http://is.gd/hlF5Axfrom Leagle.com.

NEW LEAF: Suit Over Lead Content in Product Pending in Calif.-------------------------------------------------------------On January 29, 2009, New Leaf Brands, Inc. was notified that itwas named as a defendant, along with 54 other defendants, in aclass action lawsuit under California Proposition 65 for allegedlyfailing to disclose the amount of lead in one of its products.The Company has responded to discovery requests from the AttorneyGeneral of California. To date, no trial date has been set. TheCompany is currently investigating the merits of the allegationand is unable to determine the likelihood of an unfavorableoutcome or a range of possible loss. This matter remains pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 6,2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

Plaintiffs Alvin Kaufman and Richard Laluna allege in the SiriusXMclass action lawsuit that the subscription agreement states thatcustomers will be charged a $2 invoice administration fee if theypay with a check or money order. However, Sirius has beenimproperly charging this fee to annual renewals paid by creditcard, debit card or prepaid Sirius or XM subscription charge, theclass action lawsuit says.

"Sirius was well aware of this improper charge and yet it neitherinformed its subscribers of the nature of the charge nor offered arefund of the administration fees or adequate compensation once itbecame apparent to Sirius that the invoice was paid by a meansother than check or money order or simply not paid by check ormoney order," the class action lawsuit states.

This is the second time Mr. Kaufman, a Nevada resident, and Mr.Laluna, a New York resident, have sued Sirius over the fees andattempted to hold the company liable for breach of contract andviolations of New York's deceptive practices law.

Their first case, filed in November 2009, was tossed out a yearlater when U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero ruled the law onlyapplied to New York subscribers. Accepting Messrs. Kaufman's andLaluna's argument that subscribers living outside of New Yorkshould be covered by the law because the invoice fee transactionsoccurred in New York "would permit global coverage of [thedeceptive practices law] any time a New York corporation chargedand retained an improper fee from non-New York consumers throughuse of deception," an appeals court said.

The plaintiffs' revised class action lawsuit states the terms andconditions of the subscription agreement provides that "alldisputes would be resolved in state and federal courts in NewYork" under the laws of the state and the FCC.

The revised SiriusXM invoice fee class action lawsuit, filed onFebruary 6, 2013, is brought on behalf of two classes: all currentand former New York SiriusXM subscribers and all current andformer subscribers in other states who were improperly charged aninvoice administration fee.

It is seeking a permanent injunction, money damages, and more.

The SiriusXM Invoice Fee Class Action Lawsuit case is Kaufman v.Sirius XM Radio Inc., Index No. 650420/2013, in the Supreme Courtof New York, County of New York.

SONAR CAPITAL: Judge Dismisses Insider Trading Class Action-----------------------------------------------------------Eric Hornbeck, writing for Law360, reports that a New York federaljudge dismissed a class action on Feb. 8 that accused hedge fundmanager Sonar Capital Management LLC, along with a former employeewho pled guilty to insider trading, of making $23 million tradingSigma Designs Inc. stock by using nonpublic information.

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff dismissed the allegations againstSonar, former Sonar managing director Noah Freeman and Sonarprincipal Neil Druker in a brief order. A full opinion with hisreasoning will be released "in due course," the judge said.

In November 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed withrespect to the Yield Plus Fund. The lawsuit is captioned Ross v.Reserve Management Company, Inc. et al. and is pending in the U.S.District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Rosslawsuit is on behalf of persons who purchased shares of ReserveYield Plus Fund. On November 20, 2009, the plaintiffs filed afirst amended complaint naming as defendants the fund's advisor,certain of its affiliates and the Company and certain of itsdirectors, officers and shareholders as alleged control persons.The complaint alleges claims of violations of the federalsecurities laws and other claims based on allegations that falseand misleading statements and omissions were made in the ReserveYield Plus Fund prospectuses and in other statements regarding thefund. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatorydamages including interest, attorneys' fees, rescission, exemplarydamages and equitable relief.

On January 19, 2010, the defendants submitted motions to dismissthe complaint. The motions are pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 6,2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended December 31, 2012.

The Company estimates that its clients' current aggregateshortfall, based on the original par value of their holdings inthe Yield Plus Fund, less the value of fund distributions to dateand the value of payments under the SEC settlement, isapproximately $36 million. This amount does not take into accountany assets remaining in the fund that may become available forfuture distributions.

The Company says it is unable to predict the outcome or the timingof the ultimate resolution of the Ross lawsuit, or the potentialloss, if any, that may result. However, management believes theoutcome is not likely to have a material adverse effect on thefinancial condition, results of operations or cash flows of theCompany.

Based in Omaha, Nebraska, TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation --http://www.ameritrade.com/-- through its subsidiaries, provides securities brokerage services and technology-based financialservices to retail investors, traders, and independent registeredinvestment advisors (RIAs) in the United States.

TELLABS INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Illinois--------------------------------------------------------------Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP has filed a classaction lawsuit against Tellabs, Inc. and certain of its officers.The class action filed in United States District Court, NorthernDistrict of Illinois, and docketed under 13-cv-1066, is on behalfof a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased orotherwise acquired securities of Tellabs between October 26, 2010and April 26, 2011, both dates inclusive. This class action seeksto recover damages against the Company and certain of its officersand directors as a result of alleged violations of the federalsecurities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgatedthereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Tellabs securities duringthe Class Period, you have until March 25, 2013 to ask the Courtto appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of theComplaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby, Esq. atrswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), tollfree, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to includetheir mailing address and telephone number.

Tellabs designs, develops and supports telecommunicationsnetworking products for communication service providers in theUnited States and internationally.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendantsmade false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed todisclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,operations and prospects. Specifically, defendants made falseand/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) thatthe Company's Q4 2010 revenue guidance factored in a change to thedistribution arrangement with a certain customer which wouldaccelerate revenue recognition on substantial sales to Q4 2010that otherwise would not have been recognized until Q1 2011; (2)that, as such, this out of the ordinary shift in revenuerecognition from Q1 2011 masked that the Company's business andrevenues were declining substantially faster in Q4 2010 than theCompany had represented to the public; (3) that the Company'sNorth American business was slowing at a greater rate than theCompany had represented to the public; and (4) that, as a resultof the above, the defendants' positive statements about theCompany's business, operations and prospects lacked a reasonablebasis and/or were materially false and/or misleading when made.

On January 25, 2011, the Company issued a press release announcingits Q4 2010 financial results wherein the Company admitted thatwhen it "set the guidance and provided it to [the public] inOctober [of 2010] . . . [Tellabs had] anticipate[d] the change inthis distribution arrangement with the customer." On this news,shares of Tellabs declined $1.35 per share, or almost 20%, toclose on January 25, 2011, at $5.69 per share, on unusually heavyvolume.

The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrustclass litigation. It has offices in New York, Chicago, and SanDiego.

TOKYO ELECTRIC: Sued Over 2011 Fukushima Nuclear Meltdown---------------------------------------------------------RT reports that at least 350 people affected by the 2011 Fukushimanuclear meltdown will file a class action lawsuit against theJapanese government and the plant's operator, Tokyo Electric PowerCo (TEPCO) on the second anniversary of the disaster.

Lawyers representing residents whose homes and farms were hit byradiation in the wake of the disaster said it was the largest suiton the issue filed against the government.

The plaintiffs will further seek some US$535 each in compensationfrom TEPCO for every month they have been displaced as a result ofthe accident.

They also plan to seek a court injunction that will require boththe government and TEPCO to reduce radiation levels in theaffected area to pre-disaster levels.

The suit will be filed on March 11, the two-year anniversary ofthe world's worst nuclear accident since the 1986 Chernobyldisaster. Several other similar class-action suits against boththe government and TEPCO will be filed with the Tokyo DistrictCourt on the same day.

"The government promoted nuclear power as a national policy andhas been closely involved with it," lawyer Izutaro Managi told AAPnews agency.

"Being fully aware of the danger of losing power due to a tsunami,the government neglected its duty to prevent such an event," hesaid. "This is a suit to recover a Fukushima with neitherradiation nor nuclear power," he continued.

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster occurred after a 9.0-magnitude earthquake and a subsequent tsunami crashed into thepower station and knocked out its cooling system leading to themeltdown of three reactor cores. Tens of thousands were forced toflee the area and many are still unable to return.

With residents preparing to sue the government and TEPCO for theirrole in the worst nuclear disaster in a generation, on Feb. 7 thepower company found itself in hot water for allegedly misleading agovernment panel over possible quake damage to its reactorbuilding.

TEPCO said that radiation levels were "dreadfully high" in orderto prevent an onsite inspection of its crippled nuclear plant,according to Mitsuhiko Tanaka, a former member of the now-disbanded Diet commission, which had been tasked with uncoveringthe cause of the nuclear crisis.

The commission had hoped to determine to see if the isolationcondensers -- key safety components at nuclear plants -- had beendamaged in the earthquake.

TEPCO had denied they were damaged in the quake and falsifiedactual conditions within the plant to keep inspectors out,Mr. Tanaka said in a statement submitted to the chiefs of the twoDiet chambers on Feb. 7.

Toshimitsu Tamai, then chief of TEPCO's corporate planningdepartment, urged Mr. Tanaka not to carry out the probe in lightof major safety concerns, saying "If you got lost, you would runinto areas with dreadfully high levels of radiation," The AsahiShimbun newspaper reports.

It was later found out that the cover allowed for the transmissionof 10-16 percent of sunlight to come through, and it was furtherequipped with high-powered mercury lamps.

If it were determined that the emergency cooling system wasdamaged by the earthquake, more stringent quake-resistancestandards would be required for nuclear power plants, furtherdelaying reactors from going online around the country.

A TEPCO spokesman admitted that the utility gave inaccurateinformation to the parliamentary commission but claims it did notintentionally lie about conditions within the structure.

In July, a parliamentary report said Fukushima was a man-madedisaster stemming from Japan's culture of "reflexive obedience."

TEPCO had previously admitted to downplaying the risks of atsunami due to political, financial and reputational concerns. InOctober the energy utility reversed their previously held positionthat disaster was unavoidable, saying "When looking back on theaccident, the problem was that preparations were not made inadvance . . ."

In August, the Fukushima Nuclear Accident IndependentInvestigation Commission blamed both TEPCO and the Japaneseauthorities for the disaster, saying "the accident was the resultof collusion between the government, the regulators, and TEPCO,"whom they said "effectively betrayed the nation's right to be safefrom nuclear accidents."

On December 8, 2004, a complaint was filed in California statecourt on behalf of an alleged class of consumers asserting claimsagainst Visa U.S.A. Inc. ("Visa U.S.A."), Visa InternationalService Association ("Visa International"), and MasterCard underCalifornia's Cartwright Act and Unfair Competition Law. Theclaims in this action, Attridge v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., et al., seekto piggyback on the portion of the U.S. Department of Justice("DOJ") litigation in which the U.S. District Court for theSouthern District of New York found that Visa's bylaw 2.10(e) andMasterCard's Competitive Programs Policy, or CPP, constituteunlawful restraints of trade under the federal antitrust laws. OnMay 19, 2006, the court entered an order dismissing plaintiff'sCartwright Act claims with prejudice but allowing the plaintiff toproceed with his Unfair Competition Law claims, which seekrestitution, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. OnDecember 14, 2007, the plaintiff amended his complaint to add VisaInc. as a defendant. No new claims were added to the complaint.

On July 1, 2009, the court denied in part the Defendants' Motionfor Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication, but ordered theparties to submit affidavits as to whether further discoveryshould be conducted prior to the court rendering judgment on theMotion for Summary Adjudication. On August 3, 2009, the courtruled the Motion submitted without any such further discovery.

In the separate "Indirect Purchaser" Credit/Debit Card TyingCases, also pending in California state court, Visa entered into asettlement agreement on September 14, 2009, which potentiallycould have had the effect of releasing the claims asserted in theAttridge case, subject to the ruling of the Attridge court. OnSeptember 24, 2009, the Attridge court deferred its decision onthe Motion for Summary Adjudication pending court approval of thesettlement in the Credit/Debit Card Tying Cases. On August 23,2010, final approval of the Credit/Debit Card Tying Casessettlement was granted. The plaintiff in Attridge and othersappealed the final approval order. On February 15, 2011, thecourt ordered that the Attridge case be stayed until 30 daysfollowing the final resolution of the appeals in the Credit/DebitCard Tying Cases. On January 9, 2012, the appeals court reversedthe approval of the Credit/Debit Card Tying Cases settlement, andthe case was remanded to the trial court for consideration of thefairness and adequacy of the settlement in light of the inclusionof the Attridge claims in the release. Attridge filed a motion todisqualify the trial judge in the Credit/Debit Card Tying Cases,which was granted. On June 4, 2012, the Credit/Debit Card TyingCases were reassigned to the Honorable John E. Munter, the samejudge in the Attridge case. On July 17, 2012, the Attridge casewas stayed until January 16, 2013.

The parties in the Credit/Debit Card Tying Cases subsequentlyagreed upon a revised written settlement agreement, which wassubmitted to the court for preliminary approval on August 20,2012, and executed as of September 6, 2012. The court entered anorder preliminarily approving the settlement on November 20, 2012.On January 9, 2013, in light of the proceedings in theCredit/Debit Card Tying Cases, the Attridge case was stayed untilApril 19, 2013.

VISA INC: Awaits Final Approval of Interchange Suit Settlement--------------------------------------------------------------Visa Inc. is still awaiting final approval of its settlement ofthe Interchange Litigation, according to the Company's February 6,2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended December 31, 2012.

Beginning in May 2005, approximately 55 complaints, all but 13 ofwhich were styled as class actions, have been filed in U.S.federal district courts on behalf of merchants against Visa U.S.A.Inc. ("Visa U.S.A.") and/or MasterCard, and in some cases, certainVisa member financial institutions. Visa International ServiceAssociation ("Visa International") was also named as a defendantin more than 30 of these complaints. The cases allege, amongother things, that Visa's and MasterCard's purported setting ofinterchange reimbursement fees, their "no surcharge" rules, andalleged tying and bundling of transaction fees violate federalantitrust laws. On October 19, 2005, the Judicial Panel onMultidistrict Litigation issued an order transferring these casesto the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New Yorkfor coordination of pre-trial proceedings (MDL 1720). On April24, 2006, the group of purported class plaintiffs filed a FirstAmended Class Action Complaint. Taken together, the claims in theFirst Amended Class Action Complaint and in the 13 complaintsbrought on behalf of individual merchants are generally broughtunder Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. In addition, some ofthese complaints contain certain state unfair competition lawclaims. These interchange-related cases seek money damages(alleged in the consolidated class action complaint to range inthe tens of billions of dollars), subject to trebling, as well asattorneys' fees and injunctive relief.

As part of the retrospective responsibility plan, Visa U.S.A. andVisa International entered into an interchange judgment sharingagreement with certain member financial institutions of VisaU.S.A. on July 1, 2007.

On January 8, 2008, the district court adopted the recommendationof the Magistrate Judge and granted defendants' motion to dismissthe class plaintiffs' claims for damages incurred prior to January1, 2004.

On January 29, 2009, class plaintiffs filed a Second ConsolidatedAmended Class Action Complaint. Among other things, thiscomplaint: (i) added new claims for damages and injunctive reliefagainst Visa and the bank defendants regarding interchangereimbursement fees for Visa PIN-debit cards; (ii) added new claimsfor damages and injunctive relief against Visa and the bankdefendants since the time of Visa's initial public offeringregarding interchange reimbursement fees for Visa's credit,offline debit, and PIN-debit cards; (iii) eliminated claims fordamages relating to the so-called "no-surcharge" rule and "anti-steering" rules; (iv) eliminated claims for damages based on thealleged tie of network processing services and payment guaranteeservices to the payment card system services; and (v) added VisaInc. as a defendant.

In addition, class plaintiffs filed a Second Supplemental ClassAction Complaint (the "Supplemental Complaint") against Visa Inc.and several financial institutions challenging Visa'sreorganization and IPO under Section 1 of the Sherman Act andSection 7 of the Clayton Act. In the Supplemental Complaint,class plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and declaratoryand injunctive relief, including an order that the IPO be unwound.

On February 7, 2011, Visa entered into an omnibus agreement thatconfirmed and memorialized the signatories' intentions withrespect to the loss sharing agreement, the judgment sharingagreement and other agreements relating to certain interchangelitigation. Under the omnibus agreement, the monetary portion ofany settlement of the interchange litigation covered by theomnibus agreement would be divided into a MasterCard portion at33.3333% and a Visa portion at 66.6667%. In addition, themonetary portion of any judgment assigned to Visa-related claimsin accordance with the omnibus agreement would be treated as aVisa portion. Visa would have no liability for the monetaryportion of any judgment assigned to MasterCard-related claims inaccordance with the omnibus agreement, and if a judgment is notassigned to Visa-related claims or MasterCard-related claims inaccordance with the omnibus agreement, then any monetary liabilitywould be divided into a MasterCard portion at 33.3333% and a Visaportion at 66.6667%. The Visa portion of a settlement or judgmentcovered by the omnibus agreement would be allocated in accordancewith specified provisions of the Company's retrospectiveresponsibility plan. The litigation provision on the consolidatedstatements of operations is not impacted by the execution of theomnibus agreement.

On July 13, 2012, Visa Inc., its wholly-owned subsidiaries VisaU.S.A. and Visa International, MasterCard Incorporated, MasterCardInternational Incorporated, various U.S. financial institutiondefendants, and the class plaintiffs signed a memorandum ofunderstanding (the "MOU") which obligated the parties to enterinto a settlement agreement in the form attached to the MOU toresolve the class plaintiffs' claims. OnOctober 19, 2012, those same parties signed a settlement agreement(the "Settlement Agreement") to resolve the class plaintiffs'claims.

The terms of the Settlement Agreement include, among other terms:

* A comprehensive release from participating class members for liability arising out of claims asserted in the litigation, and a further release to protect against future litigation regarding default interchange and the other U.S. rules at issue in the MDL;

* Settlement payments from the Company of approximately $4.0 billion, to be paid from the Company's previously funded litigation escrow account established under the retrospective responsibility plan;

* Distribution to class merchants of an amount equal to 10 basis points of default interchange across all credit rate categories for a period of eight consecutive months, which otherwise would have been paid to issuers and which effectively reduces credit interchange for that period of time. The eight month period for the reduction would begin within 60 days after completion of the court-ordered period during which individual class members may opt out of this settlement;

* Certain modifications to the Company's rules, including modifications to permit surcharging on credit transactions under certain circumstances, subject to a cap and a level playing field with other general purpose card competitors; and

* Agreement that the Company will meet with merchant buying groups that seek to negotiate interchange rates collectively.

On October 19, 2012, the class plaintiffs filed a motion forpreliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement. Objections topreliminary approval were filed before the preliminary approvalhearing, which was held on November 9, 2012. The court grantedpreliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement on November 9,2012. Until the Settlement Agreement is finally approved by thecourt and any appeals are finally adjudicated, no assurance can beprovided that the Company will be able to resolve the classplaintiffs' claims as contemplated by the Settlement Agreement.

In addition, on October 19, 2012, the Company and the individualplaintiffs whose claims were consolidated with the MDL forcoordination of pre-trial proceedings (the "IndividualPlaintiffs") signed a settlement agreement to resolve theIndividual Plaintiffs' claims against the Company forapproximately $350 million. This payment was made from thelitigation escrow account under the retrospective responsibilityplan on October 29, 2012. On November 6, 2012, the court enteredan order dismissing the Individual Plaintiffs' claims withprejudice.

The district court entered the preliminary approval order onNovember 27, 2012. On November 27, 2012, certain objectors fileda notice of appeal from the preliminary approval order in the U.S.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Objectors also moved tostay the preliminary approval order in the district court andmoved for expedited briefing in the court of appeals. On December10, 2012, the court of appeals entered an order deferring briefingfor the appeal until after the district court enters an order offinal approval and final judgment with respect to the settlement,or otherwise concludes the matters by entry of a final judgment.On December 17, 2012, certain objectors filed a motion asking thecourt of appeals to reconsider its decision, which was denied onJanuary 31, 2013. On January 15, 2013, the district court deniedas moot objectors' request to stay the preliminary approval order.

VISA INC: Awaits Final OK of Credit/Debit Card Tying Cases Deal---------------------------------------------------------------Visa Inc. is awaiting final approval of its settlement of theCredit/Debit Card Tying Cases, according to the Company's February6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended December 31, 2012.

Complaints were filed in 19 different states and the District ofColumbia alleging state antitrust, consumer protection and commonlaw claims against Visa U.S.A. Inc. ("Visa U.S.A.") and MasterCard(and, in California, Visa International Service Association ("VisaInternational")) on behalf of consumers. The claims in theseclass actions included allegations mirroring those made in theU.S. merchant lawsuit and asserting that merchants, faced withexcessive merchant discount fees, passed on some portion of thosefees to consumers in the form of higher prices on goods andservices sold. Plaintiffs seek money damages and injunctiverelief. Visa U.S.A. has been successful in the majority of thesecases, as courts in 17 jurisdictions have granted Visa U.S.A.'smotions to dismiss for failure to state a claim or plaintiffs havevoluntarily dismissed their complaints. In New Mexico, the courtgranted Visa U.S.A.'s motion to dismiss at a hearing on May 14,2010, and entered an order and judgment dismissing the case onJune 9, 2010. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from thatorder and judgment on June 14, 2010. On April 18, 2012, the stateappellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the case.In California, in the consolidated Credit/Debit Card Tying Cases,the court dismissed claims brought under the Cartwright Act, butdenied a similar motion with respect to Unfair Competition Lawclaims for unlawful, unfair and/or fraudulent business practices.

On October 31, 2007, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion togive collateral estoppel effect to certain elements of their"tying" claim based on statements in the ruling on cross-motionsfor summary judgment in In re Visa Check/MasterMoney AntitrustLitigation. On October 3, 2008, the parties agreed toconfidential settlement terms to resolve the dispute. A writtensettlement agreement executed on September 14, 2009, was submittedto the court for approval. After the parties amended thesettlement agreement in certain respects, the court entered anorder preliminarily approving the settlement on January 5, 2010,and entered an order granting final approval on August 23, 2010.The plaintiff in Attridge, who had filed objections to thesettlement, filed a notice of appeal from the final approvalorder, as have other objectors to the settlement. The amount ofthe settlement is not considered material to the consolidatedfinancial statements.

On January 9, 2012, the Court of Appeal of the State of Californiareversed the judgment approving the settlement agreement, and thecase was remanded to the trial court for consideration of thefairness and adequacy of the settlement in light of the inclusionof the Attridge claims in the release. Attridge filed a motion todisqualify the trial judge in the Credit/Debit Card Tying Cases,which was granted. On June 4, 2012, the court issued an orderreassigning the case to the Honorable John E. Munter, the samejudge in the Attridge case.

The parties subsequently agreed upon a revised written settlementagreement, which was submitted to the court for preliminaryapproval on August 20, 2012, and executed as of September 6, 2012.

In the Credit/Debit Card Tying Cases, the court entered an orderpreliminarily approving the settlement on November 20, 2012.

VISA INC: Canadian Unit Continues to Face Merchant Class Suits--------------------------------------------------------------Visa Inc.'s Canadian unit continues to face class action lawsuitsrelating to its merchant acceptance practices, according to theCompany's February 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter endedDecember 31, 2012.

On April 21, 2009, Visa Canada Corporation ("Visa Canada")received an oral notification from the Canadian Competition Bureauthat it had initiated a civil inquiry regarding interchange andcertain of Visa policies relating to merchant acceptancepractices. The Bureau issued a voluntary draft informationrequest to Visa on August 4, 2010, seeking information aboutcertain merchant acceptance practices, interchange (including thesetting of default interchange), and fees paid by issuers andacquirers to Visa.

On December 15, 2010, the Commissioner of Competition filed aNotice of Application against Visa Canada and MasterCard. Theproceeding challenges certain Visa policies regarding merchantacceptance practices, including Visa's "no-surcharge" and "honourall cards" policies under the Competition Act. Visa Canada fileda Response to the Notice of Application on January 31, 2011. OnFebruary 10, 2011, Toronto Dominion Bank and the Canadian BankersAssociation sought leave to intervene in the proceeding; Visasupported such requests. Following a hearing on March 7, 2011,the Competition Tribunal granted the intervention requests.

The hearing before the Competition Tribunal on the merits of thecase was held from May 8, 2012, through June 21, 2012.

On December 17, 2010, a purported civil follow-on case to theCompetition Bureau's proceeding was filed against Visa Canada andMasterCard in the Superior Court of Quebec, Canada, on behalf of aclass of merchants and a class of consumers. The action, 9085-4886 Quebec Inc. et al. v. Visa Canada et al., asserts claimsunder Section 76 of the Competition Act, which does not providefor a civil cause of action. Plaintiff seeks unspecified moneydamages and injunctive relief.

On March 28, 2011, Mary Watson filed a class action lawsuit in theSupreme Court of British Columbia, Canada, on behalf of merchantsand others in Canada that accept payment by Visa and MasterCard(Watson). The lawsuit, filed against Visa Canada, MasterCard, andten financial institutions, alleges conduct contrary to section 45of the Competition Act and also asserts claims of civilconspiracy, interference with economic interests, and unjustenrichment, among others. Plaintiff alleges that Visa andMasterCard each conspired with their member financial institutionsto set supra-competitive default interchange rates and merchantdiscount fees, and that Visa and MasterCard's respective "no-surcharge" and "honour all cards" rules had the anticompetitiveeffect of increasing merchant discount fees. The lawsuit seeksunspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief. On January 9,2012, plaintiff filed a notice of application for certification ofa class action. Defendants' responding certification material wasdelivered on October 15, 2012.

On May 16, 2011, a merchant class action which effectively mirrorsthe Watson case was initiated in Ontario (Bancroft-Snell). As inWatson, the Bancroft-Snell complaint alleges conduct incontravention of Section 45 of the Competition Act, civilconspiracy, interference with economic interests, and unjustenrichment, among other claims, and seeks similar relief. As aresult of plaintiff's unopposed request on January 10, 2012, theBancroft-Snell case is being held in abeyance pending furtherproceedings in the Watson case.

On April 10, 2012, the court in the 9085-4886 Quebec Inc. casepermitted the plaintiff to revise its complaint to effectivelymirror the Watson case, and to add the same ten financialinstitutions as co-defendants. On June 13, 2012, at plaintiff'srequest and in light of the proceedings in the Watson case, thecourt entered an order staying the case until June 21, 2013.

On July 12 and 13, 2012, merchant class actions which effectivelymirror the Watson case were initiated in Saskatchewan (Canada RentA Heater (2000) Ltd.) and Alberta (1023926 Alberta Ltd.). Inlight of the proceedings in the Watson case, plaintiffs' counselin both actions advised that no further proceedings will be takenand no Statement of Defense will be required without priorreasonable notice to the parties.

In the Watson case, the plaintiff's reply materials in support ofclass certification were received on November 30, 2012.

On December 14, 2012, the Watson plaintiff's counsel filed anothermerchant class action in Alberta (Marconies Hair Club and LaserCenter Inc.) which effectively mirrors the Watson case.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contactPeter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.